Shia Sects

After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali, the Shias clustered around his son Hadhrat Hassan and appointed him as their Imam on the third day of his death. Qais bin Saad bin ‘Ubadah was the first person to take the oath of allegiance at his hand.

The Sabais had now come out into the open with complete fanfare. They dropped the old apologetic posture and paraded their fictitious wares with aggressive flamboyance. They tore away the diplomatic veil they had donned in the past to camouflage their hideous intentions because they were too scared of Hadhrat Ali to be caught with their trousers down: it would be even more true to say that their sulking posture was motivated more by diplomacy than by fear. It goes to their credit that they never under-estimated Hadhrat Ali. In fact, they were deeply impressed by his shrewdness and readiness to act. They knew down in their hearts that if they expressed their bogus beliefs publicly, he would wipe them out root and branch and give them out root and branch and give them a spanking they would never forget. A Shia historian records that the first not of transgression about the exaggerated powers of Hadhrat Ali was played by the Sabais during his own reign: it was obviously an exercise in negative innovation which is quite inconsistent with the hallowed traditions of reporting and positive transmission of information. Once Hadhrat Ali happened to meet a bunch of people who were eating during daytime in Ramadham. He asked them if they were travellers or patients.

Sabais: We are neither travelers not patients

Hadhrat Ali: Are you from among the people of the Book or are you non-

Muslims.

Sabais: No, we are not from among the people of the Book.

Hadhrat Ali: Then why are you eating during daytime in the month of fasting?

Sabais: You are you.

In this way the Sabais were pointing to his Godliness. He told them to repent and gave them to repent and gave them some time for repentance. He elicited from them the promise that they would convey their repentance to him within a certain span of time. But these rascals clung to their spurious faith. Hadhrat Ali lumped them together in a pit and fumigated them. He warned them to back out of their rickety convictions, otherwise they would be burned alive. But when they persisted in their deviation, they were consigned to the flames. At that occasion he recited the verse:

(When I detected something indecent, I kindled the fire and called for Qanbar).

He himself was present when they were being broiled in the leaping flames and he stayed there till they were charred to cinders and ashes. They went into hiding or under cover for about a year and put the lid on this episode but Abdullah bin Saba suddenly jumped into action after the death of Hadhrat Ali. As has already been pin-pointed, he was a jew who paraded himself as a Muslim. Those who pledged at his hand and yielded to the flotsam and jetsam of his jumbled and scrambled beliefs are know as Sabais. They openly denied the death of Hadhrat Ali.

NauBakhti, who is the earliest authority on the genesis and evolution of Shia sects, supports this view:

"After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali, his followers who believed in his leadership as part of divine obligation, split into three sects. One sect believed that Hadhrat Ali had neither been murdered nor had he died, nor would he be ever murdered or die. He will drive the Arabs with his rod and fell the entire world with justice and equity when it is choked with tyranny and oppression. It is the first sect in the Muslim community which cooked up the concept of legacy and banked on exaggeration and distortion as propaganda ploys. This sect is known as the Sabai sect and its adherents were the followers Abdullah bin Saba. He is the first man who grinned at Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthman and other companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and dissociated himself from them and he claimed that his acts carried the sanction and support of Hadhrat Ali. When Hadhrat Ali was apprised of the situation, he asked him about it but he came out with a blunt confession. He ordered him to be executed. But the people vociferously protested against it and told Hadhrat Ali that he had ordered the execution of a person whose heart spilled over with the love of his children, who took pride in his friendship and who had de-linked himself with his enemies. Therefore he deported him to Madain.

A scholarly off-shoot of the companions of Hadhrat Ali has stated that Avdullah bin Saba was a jew who had donned the cloak of Islam, pretended to love Hadhrat Ali and during his Jewish period he held similar belief about Hadhrat Ali that he was the executor of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The same Jew propagated first of all the obligatory nature of Hadhrat Ali’s Imamat, dissociated himself from his enemies and waged war against his opponents. That is why those who are against the Shias believe that Shiaism is derived from Judalism. When the news of Hadhrat Ali’s death was conveyed to Abdullah bin Saba in Madain, his instant reaction was categorical denial. He said to the messenger: You are lying. I will not believe it even if you bring to me his brain wrapped in seventy covers and offer seventy reliable persons as witnesses not has he been murdered because he can not die until he is the lord of the entire earth.

Other people, who are directly or indirectly concerned with recording the genesis and evolution of Shia sects, hold similar opinions. It is immaterial whether they are Sunnis or Shias as there exists a broad consensus between them. This point has been established in the preceding pages with special reference to books written by Shia scholars.

The reappearance of Sabaism after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali and the ’ben trovato’ beliefs it projected and propagated, has also been dealt with at length by the Sunni scholars. Abdul Qadir Baghdadi in his "Al-Firq bayn-ul-Firq" Ash-‘ari in "Maqalt-ul-lslamiyyin. Razi in "iraqadat Firq-ul- Muslimin wal Mushrikin" Asfraini in "Tabsir" Shahristani in "Al-Milar Wan Nihl", Ibn Haxm Zahiri in ‘Al Fasl". Abdul Hassan Balti in "At-Tanbih" Jirjani in "At-Tafrifat: and Maqrizi in "Khatat" have made reference to them.

All of these historians have expressed that after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali, Abdullah bin Saba returned from the place where he had lived as an exile. On his return he spelled out his specific beliefs about Hadhrat Ali. Asfraini writes:

"Hadhrat Ali was scared of incinerating the rest of the Sabais on account of the Syrian opposition. Besides a rift had developed between his friends and companions on the issue. Ibn Saba persisted in belief that the man who had been murdered was not Hadhrat Ali".

Shahristani also supports him: "Abduullah bin Saba articulated his specific beliefs after of Hadhrat Ali and his party thronged around him on the vasis of these beliefs"

Hadhrat Hassan followed in the tracks of his father and waged a war against his thoughts and beliefs. The Shia writer Ibn abi al-Hadid writes:

"Abdullah bin Saba appeared after the death of Hadhrat Ali. He was, in fact a Jew but wore the badge of Islam. His followers are called "Sabais". These people believed that Hadhrat Ali had not died but he was still alive among the skies. The thunder is his voice and the lightening is his glitter. Whenever they heard the clap, they uttered

(Peace on you, O Amir-ul-Mominin!)

These cruel people talked of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in extremely unrefined and indecorous language, accused him of baseless motives and publicly claimed that he had suppressed ninety percent of the divine revelation. The Sabai belief about the revelation has been discarded by Hassan bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah in a letter in which he mentions "Arja". The contents of this letter have been communicated by Sulaiman bin abi Shaikh through Haitham bin Muawiyyah, Abdul Aziz bin Abban and Abdul Wahid bin Aiman Makki. Makki relates that he was with Hassan bin Ali bin Muhammad bin Hanifayyah when he was dictating the letter. He dictated that, according to the Sabais, they had been blessed with a revelation which the people had rejected, that they had been blessed with knowledge which was hidden from other people. These lousy people believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had suppressed ninety percent of the divine revelation, though if the Prophet (peace be upon him) had really suppressed revelation, he would have blotted out the verses relating to the wife of Hadhrat Zayd or he would have suppressed the contents of the following verse:

(Do you desire the willing support of your wives?)

Hadhrat Hassan could not wage war against them in the style of his father. On the contrary the Sabais enjoyed great latitude during his tenure and spread the message of friction and disunity without much restraint. They intensified their efforts to inject the poison of dissension into the veins of the Muslim body. Whin the Shias were disenchanted with Hadhrat Ali, they fell an easy prey to the Sabai conspiracy. Some of them felt inclined towards Hadhrat Muawiyyah and some of them joined the Kharijis. Hadhrat Hassan had almost lost his grip over them. These developments have been sketched out by Mufid, Urbili, Majlisi etc. in their respective books. They have reerred to Hadhrat Muawiyyah’s advance towards Iraq:

"Hadhrat Muawiyyah marched towards Iraq to secure a point of vantage, but when he reached Jasr Manbaj, Hadhrat Hassan also moved into action. He sent a message to his officials to make preparation for a confrontation and also asked the people to come out in the name of Jehad. The people felt that the call of Jehad was too heavy a burden for them to carry. But some of them responded to the call the and an assortment of people joined him. Some of them were his shias and the shias of his father. Others believed that war must by waged against Hadhrat Muqwiyyah at any cost. There were still others who relished mischief as well as the spoils of war. Some of them were the victims of skepticism, others of fanaticism. They were the willing slaves of their chedftains and were the least attached to their faith. He set out witch these people until he arrived in Hamam Umr. Then passing through Dir Ka’ab, they camped at Sabat in the low-lying area of Qantarhah. They spent the night there. In the morning he tried to test the loyalty of his companions to discriminate between friends and foes and to wage a purposive and better-conducted war with Hadhrat Muawiyyah and the Syrians. He commanded all of them to rally at a specific spot. When they had assembled, he addressed them:

By God! I believe that by the grace of Allah I am a person with the best motives and intentions as I bear malice towards none, nor do I intend to entertain evil towards anyone in future. Remember, it is always better to express you dislikes while remaining within the party than expressing them while you are split and splintered. Keep it in mind, my friends, that I desire your welfare even better that your own selves. Therefore you should neither oppose me nor contradict my opinion. May God forgive us all, and may He enable you to seek His love and pleasure"!

They looked with amazement at one another when they heard his address and gave vent to wild speculation: What do you think are Hadhrat Hassan’s intentions? They concluded: By God! We guess that he intends to negotiate with Muawiyyah and hand over the affairs of Khilafat to him. They added: these people will turn infidels if he does so. Then they attacked his tent, looted his goods and even pulled the prayer mat from under him. Abdur Rahman bin Avdullah bin Jaal Azdi assaulted him, whisked away the shawl from his shoulders. He sat down shawlless on the ground, the sword dangling from his neck, them called for his horse. But his Shias and special companions surrounded him on all sides and protected those he wanted to punish. He told the people to call Rabi and Himlan. When they came, they pushed the people away and he set out on his journey again. He was accompanied by a number of other people as well. When he passed through Muslims Sabat, Jarrah bin Sanan of the Asad tribe attacked him. He held the bride of his horse. He carried a long pointed missle in his hand. He said: God is great! O Hassan, you have committed infidelity as your father had done before you. Then he inflicted a blow on his thigh with a spear. The spear tore thorough the tight and penetrated down to the bone. Hadhrat Hassan grappled with him and both of them tumbled to the ground. Meanwhile one of the Shias of Hassan leapt towards them. His name was Abdullah bin Khatal Tai. He snatched the spear from Jarrah’s hand and jabbed it into his belly. An other man Zibiyyan bin Ammarah also pounced at him and chopped off his nose. He died instantly. The other man with him was also caught and kille. Hadhrat Hassan was brought to Madain on a cot, and he stayed at the residence of Saad bin Masud Thaqafi who officially represented the Amir-ul-Mo-minin in Madain. Hadhrat Hassan had also retained him in the same office. In Madain he devoted his attention towards his treatment. Meanwhile a number of chieftains secretly wrote to Muawiyyah that they were ready to pledge to him. They strongly persuaded him to come to them. They assured him that they would either had over Hadhrat Hassan to him as soon as he reached there or kill him. Hadhrat Hassan also came to know about their secret plan. He received a letter from Hadhrat Qays bin Saad. He had dispatched him to Abdullah bin Abbas on his return from Kufah to meet Hadhrat Muawiyyah and to prevail upon him to keep off Iraq. He had also appointed him the leader of the party and told him that in case of his martyrdom Qays bin Saad would act as the leader. Qays informed him in the letter that they had invited Muawiyyah to a settlement called Hububiyyah. On the other side Hadhrat Muawiyyah sent for Ubaidullah bin Abbas. He fixed a sum of one million dirham as surety. Half of the amount was to be shelled out immediately while the remaining half would be paid in Kufah. Ubaid Ullah moved towards Muawiyya’s army with his special companions during the night. When the people found their leader off the scene, Hadhrat Qais bin Saad led the prayers and acted on his behalf. Hadhrat Hassan realized that the people were determined to humiliate him. He felt that they had switched their loyalties. They ridiculed him as a result of the twist in their motives, accuse him of infidelity, looted his property and legitimized his murder. Most of the people around him were mischief—mongers. They were all out to harm and humiliate him. His own Shias and the Shias of his father were too few to put up a meaningful and effective resistance to the Syrian on-slaught. Hadhrat Muawiyyah dispatched a letter of conciliation to him. He also mentioned in his letter the letters of his companions in which they had expressed their intention of either handing him over or killing him. He offered a package of terms and conditions to bring about a reconciliation, and to agree to these terms was what the times clearly dictated, but Hadhrat Hassan did not trust him and mistook his gesture of sincerity for and ill-conceived pretense, though, on account of the treachery and disloyalty of his companions, the best course for him was to accept his offer of conciliation. I have already stressed the fact that his companions were a bunch of rogues. They were scoundrels and seemed determined to install some one else as their Amir in his place. Most ho them wanted to spill his blood and hand him over to his adversaries. His own cousin was also against him and he wanted to degrade him and pass him over to his opponents. The majority of his companions were inclined towards earthly benefits and rewards and had grown indifferent towards the punishments of the next world. However, Hadhrat Hassan secured the trust and confidence of Hadhrat Muawiyyah. He raise all the objections that could possibly be raised. One of the conditions was that the Amir-ul-Mominin will not be persecuted. During prayers he will not be condemend; the Shias of Ali will not be maltreated and justice will be done to everyone. Hadhrat Muawiyyah accepted all the terms and pledged to fulfil them

Ibn abi al-Hadid adds: When Hadhrat Hassan decided to leave Madain, he addressed the people: You have pledged to me that you will be reconciled to those with whom I am reconciled and you will fight those with whom I fight. By God! At this moment I bear no malice towards any member of my community whether he lives in the east or in the west. You dislike grouping, peace and reconciliation but these are better that rift, fear, spite and enmity which you appear to relish. My father Hadhrat Ali used to say that we should not look down upon the leadership to Muawiyyah because if we discard him, it will be like the irreversible chipping of heads off the shoulders that carry them.

Then he climbed down the pulpit. The people said to him: You have uttered these words because you want to resign and dish out the Khilafat to Hadhrat Muawiyyah. Therefore they flared up, rejected his contention, looted the goods, snatched away his shawl and pounced upon the slave maid who was with him and they splintered into different groups. One group clearly played his tunes while the majority of people supplied the discordant notes. He said:

(O Allah! I need your help)

He ordered the people to march and they marched away. Somebody brought his horse to him and he jumped on it. Some of his friends surrounded him but the others protected him and the march continued. Sanan bin Jarah Asadi accompanied him to Muzlim Sabat and stayed with him. He came closer to him and spoke to him in rather confidential tones. Then he struck his spear at his thigh with such force that it almost touched the bone. He became unconscious and his friends caught him, trying to excel on another.

Shia historian have elucidated that the people who had forced Hadhrat Hassan, looted his property and wounded him, belonged to Sabat Madian, the spot to which Hadhrat Ale had Exiled Abdullah bin Saba. They were deeply impressed by the views and beliefs of Ibn Saba and were actively engaged in their dissemination and publicity. They also included Mukhrtar bin abi Ubaid Thaqafi, a victim of Sabaism, who subsequently gained immense reputation and became the self-styled spokesman of the views preached by the dissembling jew, Ibn Saba. The historian have mentioned that when Hassan ibn Ali landed in Madain in wounded state, Mukhtar knew the whole state of affairs. Mukhtar asked him: do you need wealthy and status? He inquired: how is it possible? Mukhtar replied: you should arest Hussain ibn Ali and dispatch him to Muawiyyah as a prisoner. Hadhrat Hassan replied: may God disgrace you and curse your words! Do you expect me to betray the grandson of the Messenger of Allah?

When Hadhrat Hassan perceived that the Sabai threat had acquired ominous proportions, his own Shias were degrading and humiliating him and human blood was spilling all over, he found reconciliation the only way out of the intractable situation. The Shia historian Yaqubi relates that Hadhrat Hassan had lost a large quantity of blood when he was brought to Madain. The malady had taken a serious turn. The people had left him. Hadhrat Muawiyyah came to Iraq and took over the rein of Khilafat. When Hadhrat Hassan realized that he didn’t have the strength to fight and his friends had deserted him and wee absolutely unwilling to collide with him, he patched up with Hadhrat Muawiyyah. He ascended the pulpit, praise d the Lord and then addressed the people: you were rewarded with God’s blessing on account of our ancestors but you shed one another’s blood on account of our descendants. Therefore I have patched up with Hadhrat Muawiyyah and handed over the Khilafat to him and I can’t say whether it is a test of you faith or a source of benefit for a limited period.

Hadhrat Hassan went even a step further. He not only handed over the Khilafat to Hadhrat Muawiyyah, but also pledged fealty at his hand alongwith his brothers and commanders of the army as Kashi has reported from Jafar bin Baqir:

"Muawiyyah wrote to Hadhrat Hassan: you, Hadhrat Hussain and the companions of Ali should come to see me. Thus when they came to Syria, Qays bin Saad bin Ubadah Ansari was also with them. Hadgrat Muqwiyyah gave them permission to enter. He had already churned up an address for the occasion. Muawiyyah said to handed over the Khilafat to him and I can’t say whether it is a test of your faith or a source of benefit for a limited period"

Hadhrat Hassan went even a step further. He not only handed over the Khilafat to Hdhrat Muawiyyah, but also pledged fealty at his hand alongwith his brothers and commanders of the army as Kashi has reported from Jafar bin Baqir:

"Muawiyyah wrote to Hadhrat Hassan: you, Hadhrat Hussain and the companions of Ali should come to see me. Thus when they came to syria, Qays bin Saad bin Ubadah Ansari was also with them. Hadhrat Muawiyyah gave them permission to enter. He had already churned up an address for the occasion. Muawiyyah said to Hassan: come and pledge to me. Hadhrat Hassan pleedged at his hand. Then he asked Hadhrat Hussain: get up and pledge to him. He also stood up and pledged at his hand. Then he addressed Qays: come and pledge to him. He looked towards Hadhrat Hussain for Orders. He said: pledge at his hand because he (Hadhrat Hassan) is my lmam".

These facts have been endorsed by the fanatic Shia Majlisi in his book "Jila-ul Uyyun: written in persian langrage; Among the Shia Mugaddithin Abbas Qummi has mentioned them in his "Muntah-il-Amal": it is also written in Persian. Ibn abi al Hadid, too, has recorded it in his book "Sharh Nahf-ul-Balaghah".

Some other Shia sects sprang out of this episode. Nau Bakhti observes that when Hadhrat Muawiyyah, they made him the butt of their spiteful criticism, backed out of their belief in his Imamat and affirmed their faith in the will of the people, but the rest of his companions supported his claim to Imamat till his martydom. When he had withdrawn himself from a confrontation with Muawiyyah and had landed in Muzlim Sabat, Jarah bim Sanan attacked him. He held the bridle of his horse in his hand and shouted: God is great! O Hassan! you have committed infidelity – as you father had done before you, and then he inglicted such a heavy blow on his thigh with a spear that his thigh bone was fractured. Hadhrat Hassan also gummed on to him until both of them slumped on the ground. The people pounced at Jarah and squashed him under their feet. They brought Hadhrat Hassan to Madina but the spear-wound was a constatn source of pain and torture. He restrained his anger and bore the pain and greif with fortitude caused by his own followers until he died by the end of Safar in 47 A.H. at the age of forty five years and six mounts. Some of the scholars opine that he was born during Ramadhan in 3 A.H. and the tenure of his Khilafat streteched over six years and five months.

After the patch-up a group of Shias still supported his stand. Therefore, riding on his band-wagon, they also pledged fealty at the hand of Hadhrat Muawiyyah and never wavered in their loyalty and sincerity toward him from 41 A.H. to 60 A.H. The most prominent among this group of Shias were the children of Hadhrat Ali, the children of his children and his wives, Hadhrat Hussain, Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah, Abdullah bin Abbas, the sons of ‘Aqil and Jafar’ and other distinguished Hashmis who shared and identity of beliefs with the general ren of Muslims and the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They believed that no one should be charged with infidelity and apostasy, that they should make a practical demonstration of unity and solidarity, that hey should paper over their differences and avoid collision and confrontation, that they should strengthen the bonds of mutual love and affection and establish inter-marital relations as has been copiously illustrated in the preceding pages.

One of the groups had detached itself from Hadhrat Hussan and Hussain and affirmed its faith in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah. This group came to be subsequently know as Kaisaniyyah. Hadhrat Hassan’s pacification with Hadhrat Muawiyyah reinforced its strength and stature. The views and beliefs of this sect resembled those of the Sabsais. It evolved with remarkable rapidity and it expanded beyond the expectations and calculations of the people and it provided both encouragement and nourishment to other Shia sects which directly hatched out of its womb as will be explained later on in greater detail. Nau Bakhti include it among those sects which sprang up after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali and he regards it as one of the sects which flourished during Hadhrat Hassan’s tenure. Nau Bakhti believes that the group who clung to his Imamat after the martydom of Hadhrat Ali split into three sects: (1) Sabaiyyah (2) the sect who believed in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanigiyyah because on the day of Basrah he, instead of his other brothers, held his father’s flag. This sect was known as Kaisaniyyah. The source of its nomen-clature is that the chief of the sect was Mukhtar bin abi Ubaid Thaqafi and his surname was Kaisan. He demanded revenge for the blood of Hadhrat Hussain bin Ali and put to sword a number of Hussain’s killers and he claimed that he had simply carried out the orders of Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah who obviously was the Imam after his father. Mukhtar was called Kaisan because it was the name of his chief of police whose patronym was Abu Umrah. He praised Mukhtar in both words and deeds beyond all human expectation. He used to assert that Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah was the executor of Hadhrat Ali bin abi Talib and he was also the Imam. Mukhtar was his convenor and administrator. He declared that Ali’s predecessor Claiphs, the residents of Jamal and the residents of Safin were all infidels. He also declared that Gabriel brought him the revelation from Allah but they could not see him. Some scholars have reported that Kaisan was the name of one of Hadhrat Ali’s slaves whom he had released from bondage. He had provoked him to spill Hussain’s bllood and identified his killers. He was also his confidant, adviser and ruler.

Shahristani has also endorsed the point. He observes that those who believed in a clear specification of Imamat adopted a different course of action after the martydom of Hadhrat Ali. Some of them openly suggested that there existed a clear indication about the Imamt of Hadhrat Ali’s son Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah. These people were called Kaisaniyyah. Those who did not believe in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanigiyyah affirmed that the Imamat was restricted to Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain alone. Qadhi Noman Shi’i supports this view. People, however, differ about his identity. It is not absolutely clear whether he belonged to the Fatmi sect or the Ithna Ashriyyah. The opionion of the scholars on the issue is clearly divided. Some of them think

(He is out Imam and executor after Hadhrat Ali. They think that Hassan and Hussain are mutes.)

(Then, relying on exaggeration and mis-statement they propose that he did not die, and he is present in "Sab-i-Ridhwa."

(He is among the lions he is deputed to supervise and he declares that he receives his subsistence form them)

Among the Sunnis Baghadadi in "Al-Firq Bain-ul-Firq." Ashari in "Maqalat-il- Islamiyyin", Malti in "At-Tanbih", Tazi in "Itiqadat Firq-ul-Muslimiyyin wal Mushrikin", Isfraini in "At-Tabsir", Ibn Khuldun Ibn Hazan in "al-Fasl" and Mirqrizi etc. have referred to the Kaisaniyyah sect of Shias.

At the juncture of conciliation between Hadhrat Hassan and Hadhrat Muawiyyah one of the sects had absolutely discarded Shiaism and never subsequently included themselves among the Shias. Nau Bakhti observes that when Hadhrat Hassan and Muawiyyah committed themselves to patch-up and Hadhrat Hassan accepted the goods dispatched to him by Hadhrat Hassan accepted the goods dispatched to him by Hadgrat Muawiyyah, thes people started lambasting him. They opposed him, damned his Imamat and concurred with the opinion of the populace.

Sabaism had spread most shabbily during this period. A Shia historian acknowledges its wide-spread impact. He observes that this worst innovation first permeated among some of the Iraqis like an epidemic. He has also enumerated the factors that contributed to its wide-ranging influence and in this he has relied on the authority of Ibn abi al-Hadid. They were people of limited vision. Therefore it was not unexpected of them to be over-impressed by the miracles performed by Hadhrat Ali and to be led astray. They easily formed the belief that the divine essence had been injected into Hadhrat Ali. It is generally said that they had heard from their forefathers the God often penetrated the mortal frame of His prophets. Therefore they held a similar belief about Hadhrat Ali. It is also possible that this view was deliberately propagated by some atheists who wanted to inject their atheistic beliefs into the flesh and soul of Islam.

Shias during the period of Hadhrat Hussain:

After the death of Hadhrat Hassan, the Shias flocked round his brother Hadhrat Hussain. The most stupendous event and the most glorious episode that occurred during his tenure was his rebellion against Yazid. Yaqubi, one of the extermist Shias, observes that when Yazid was appointed Caliph after the death of his father, he wrote to Walid bin Uqbah bin abi Sufiyyan, the governor of Madina, to secure the pledge of Hussain bin Ali. When Walid pressured Hadhrat Hussain to pledge fealty to Yazid, he left for Makkah where he stayed for a few days. Meanwhile the citizens of Iraq dispatched a number of letters to him which assumed the from of an unbroken series of messages. The last letter he received was from Hani’ bin abi Hani’ and Said bin Abdullah Khithami. The letter is reproduced below:

"We begin with the name of Allah! To Hussain bin Ali from his Muslim Shias. You should come immediately. Everyone is waiting for you. They do not acknowledge any body else as their Imam. Therefore you should come as soon as possible".

Another Shia historian Masudi writes:

"When Hadhrat Muawiyyah died, the residents of Kufah dispatched innumerable letters to Hadhrat Hussain bin Ali that they had disciplined themselves to take the oath of allegiance at his hand. They wrote: We would prefer to die than to pledge fealty at the hand of some on else. That is why we do not participate in the Friday and congregational prayers". Another letter contained the following message:

"The gardens are jush green and the fruits have ripened. Therefore you can come whenever you like. The army awaits your arrival".

When the letters piled up and the Kufi demand turned into an insistent refrain, Hadhrat Hussain sent Muslim bin ‘Aqil lbin abi Talib to Kufah. He also dispatched a letter to the residents of Kufah and told them that the letter was a prelude to his visit. When Muslim arrived in Kufah, the people swarmed round him and pledged fealty to him. They gave their word of honour that they would extend their maximum help and co-operation to Hadhrat Hussain".

Mufid adds:

"All the Kufis pledged to Muslim while crying and the number of these people exceeded eighteen thousand".

After a few days Hadhrat Hussain received a letter from Muslim:

"One lac people are ready to pledge at your hand. Therefore don’t delay".

Hadhrat Hussain set out towards kufah after receiving the letter. But Hadhrat Abbas called on him. Hadhrat ibn Abbas was a spring of the Banu Hashim, he was the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Hadhrat Ali, he was an experienced man and had a better grasp of the psychic make-up of the Shias of his times, as has been attested by Masudi: Hadhrat ibn Abbas said to him: "O my cousin! I have come to know that you intend to visit Iraq. Don’t you know that these people are traitors? They are inviting you to fight but you shouldn’t make haste. If you want to fight with this tyrant and do not like to stay in Makkah, you should better go to Yemen. It is off the main route and you’ll also find a number of helpers and supporters there. Stay there and seek the good will of the people. From there you should write to citizens of Iraq out their Amir. If they have the power to extradite him and there is no one to oppose you, then you are welcome to go there. I don’t rule out their treachery. If they don’t act up to your wishes, then you should stay put and await divine verdict. The place is riddled with castles and valleys. Hadhrat Hussain replied: O my cousin! I know you are my will-wisher and sympathizer. But Muslims bin ‘Aqui has sent me a letter in his own hand that all the people there are agreed to take the oath of allegiance at my hand. Therefore I have decided to visit them. Ibn Abbas explained: I know these people to the roots of their hair. I have tried and tested them. What they did to your father and brother is not hidden form you. They will conspire against you in complicity with their Amir and pack you off straight to martydom—Ah! how truly Ibn Abbas had spoken! How sympathetic was he towards Hadhrat Hussain and how well-informed about the designs of the Kufis! – If you march in this direction, and Ibn Ziyyad comes to know about your departure, he will mobilize his army and seek an open confrontation with you. The people who have dashed off letters to you will turn into your implacable enemies. If you don’t agree to my proposal and are determined to leave for Kufah, then, for God’s sake, don’t take your wife and children along. By God! I apprehend that you may be martyrred as Hadhrat Uthman was martyrred and his wife and children remained passive spectators".

These were the explicit words of Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas and the amount of prestige he enjoyed in the eyes of Hadhrat Ali is no secret. Mufid comments: "Amir-ul-Mominin dined with Hadhrat Hassan one night, with Hadhrat Hussain the next night and with Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas the night after.

He constantly suffered at the hands of the Shias who spared no opportunity to humiliate him. They tortured him so much that he was forced to confess: I wish Muawiyyah could exchange you with his men as dinar are exchanged with dirham. He should take ten of you and give me one of his men in exchange.

Abu Bakr Hisham also endorsed the views of Hadhrat Ibn Abbas that the Shias were dishonest and traitorous. Therefore he should not fall into their trap. According to Masudi Abu Bakr bin Harith bin Hisham called on Hadhrat Hussain and said to him: O my cousin! I like to sympathize with you but I don’t know how to express my sympathies! Hadhrat Hussain replied: Abu Bakr! You are one of those who cold not be labeled dishonest or insincere. Therefore you are welcome to express your views. Abu Bakr said: your father was among the early Muslims who had embraced Islam. After entering the fold of Islam, he left behind a pleasant and favorable impression. He always launched a tempestuous attack (on the enemy). People attached great expectations to him and had evolved a consensus around him. When he marched towards Muawiyyah, every one had supported him except the Syrians. Even otherwise he enjoyed a better status than Muawiyyah but in spite of all this the people degraded and disgraced him. They were reluctant to wage Jehad; greed and lechery overpowered them. They not only prickled and annoyed him but also opposed him tooth and nail until he quaffed the cup of martyrdom. Then the treatment they extended to your elder brother after the death of your father is not hidden from you either. You are a direct witness to these happenings and yet you are ready to ho to them who opposed your father and brother. You want to fight against the residents of Syria and Iraq and the person who wields greater power than you and who is fully laced with arms. People fear him more and expect more form him. If come to know that you have set out towards them, they will bribe the people with wealth and goods. People are creatures of flesh. Those who have promised to help and support you will turn against you. Those who seem to love you at present are the ones who will insult you later. Therefore fear God and don’t go there.

Hadhrat Hussain replied: O, my cousin! May god bless you! Your opinion has come the hard way. Whatever God has decided, must be implemented.

Abu Bakr said: O Abu Abdullah! We except reward from Allah. Then Abu Bakr, Harith bin Khalid bin ‘As bin Hisham Mukhzuma called on the governor of Makkah. They were reciting the verse

(There are so many advisers who are disobeyed and the one who can guess hidden things equates advice with trash and bilge).

I reproduce below the whole episode from books written by Shia scholar and historians to expose the treachery and cowardice of the Shias. Masudi remarks that the news of Muslim’s arrival in Kufah had been passed on to Yazid also. He appointed Ubaidullah bin Ziyyad the governor of Kufah. Ubaidullah marched form Basrah at a hurricane speed and arrived in Kufah soon after noon. When he sneaked into Kufah, he was wearing a black tiara which covered up his face. He was riding a mule. People were expecting the arrival of Hadhat Hussain. When Ibn Ziyyad saluted the people, they responded with slogans of welcome until he reached the palace. Noman bin Bashir was also inside the palace. He sat down near him and then turned his attention towards him. He asked: O son of the Messenger of Allah! what is your command? Why have you preferred my city to others? Ibn Ziyyad replied: you have been too much in the dark and then he drew aside the cover from his face. He recognized him and opened the gate. People exclaimed: he is Ibn Marjana. And then they threw pebbles at him. He ignored them and entered the palace. When Muslim heard the news of his arrival, he hid himself in the house of Hani’ bin Urwah Muradi. Ziyyad sent Muhammad bin Ashath bin Qais to fetch Hani’. When he was brought to Ziyyad, he asked him about Muslim, but he gave a blank reply. When Ibn Ziyyad spoke to him a little bluntly and ruthlessly’ Hani’ said" I am under obligation to your father Ziyyad and I would like to pay it back. Would you like a piece of good advice? Ibn Ziyyad adked: What is that? Hani’ replied: pack up your wealth and goods and make a straight dive for Syria along with your family and children before any harm comes to you: Now the right has arrived: one who has a better claim to rule than you has arrived. On hearing this, Ibn Ziyyad said: bring him closer to me. When he was brought closer, he applied the stick he was holding in his hand on his face with such force that his nose snapped and he receive a wound on his forehead. The flesh on his face flaked off and he borke the stick on his head and face. Hani’ tried to snatch a policeman’s swordbut someone pushed him and widened the distance between him and the sword. Hani’s companions kicked up a roar at the door, clamouring the death of their companion. Ibn Ziyyad threatened them and locked up Hani’ in a side-room. He sent out Qadhi Shrakh to tell the people that Hani’ had not been murdered Consequently, they left for their homes. When Muslim came to know that Ziyyad had maltreated Hani, he came out with the slogan "Ya Mansur" which was immediately taken up by the residents of Kufa and eighteen thousand people instantly rallied to his call. Muslim also marched towards Ibn Ziyyad but his companions locked him up inside the place. By evening not even a hundred people were left with him. When he realized that the people were slipping away, he moved towards the carved gate He had hardly reached the gate that he was left which only three companions; and when he came out of the gate, not a single man accompanied him. He was in a real quandary. He did not know where to go. There was no one to guide him. He climbed down his horse and roamed through the streets of Kufah in a state of utter stupe-faction. He was absolutely in a fix as he was stranded. He kept on walking until he reached the house of the slave-maid of Ashath bin Qais. He asked for water and she gave him some water to drink. When she asked him what had happened, he reeled off to her the entire gamut of events. She suddenly softened towards him and provided him shelter where he could hide himself. When his son came home, he found out that he was hiding there. Next morning he conveyed the news to Muhammad bin Ashath who conveyed it to Ibn Ziyyad. Ziyyad murdered him. He also murdered Hani’ bin Marwah when he was calling out the children of Murad for hilp. He was the chieftain of the tribe. When he rode on his horse, four thousands armoured people and eight thousands footmen accompanied him. If his enemy Banu Kandah had responded to his call, the number of his armoured companions would have risen to twenty thousands. But all of them displayed nauseating cowardice and chicken-heartedness and failed to heed the call of their leader.

Meeting with Hur in Qadsiyyah:

When Hadhrat Hussain arrived in Qadisiyyah, he happened to meet Hur Yazid Yamimi who asked him: O grandson of the Messenger! Where are you heading? He replied: I am heading towards this city. Hur informed him that Muslim had been martyred. He also gave him details of his torture and agony Muslim had suffered at the hands of the Kufis and the functionaries of the stated. He advised him to return as Kufa hardly held any hope of better prospects of him. He found Hur’s advice reasonable and pragmatic and decided to retrace his steps. But Muslims’ brother, out of righteous anger, became intransigent and swore not to return until they avenged the murder of his brother or received martyrdom in the process. Hadhrat Hussain replied there was hardly any point in living after they had all died.

Hadhrat Hussain’s address:

Under the circumstances, he gathered all the people and addressed them:

"O people! I have received horrifying news. Muslims bin Aqil, Hani’ bin ‘Urwah and Abdullah bin Yaqtar have embraced martyrdom. Our Shias have betrayed and humiliated us. Therefore any one who likes to leave us is welcome to do so. I’ll not be offended in the least".

When people heard his words, they started slinking on the right and on the left until, within a short span of time, only those people remained who had set off from Madinah with him. Those who had joined him on the way disappeared into thin air. Only a sprinkling of these people held on to the hem of his companionship. He had consciously uttered these words to off-set the false expectations of a party of Baddus who had joined his raks simply to live in clover in a town whose citizens obeyed the Imam unconditionally. Thus they looked forward to Kufah as veritable paradise where they would laze and roll away their time in utter luxury. They were the least inclined to face the ordeal of a rough and ready life. Hadhrat Hussain did not like to keep them in the dark by letting them in on the true nature of his sojourn.

Umor bin Loxan:

When the morning came, he commanded his companions to take their animals to water. The animal drank to their bladder’s content and they set out on their journey. When they reached Batn-i-‘Aqbah, they encamped there. He met Umro bin Lozan, a chief of Banu Akrimah. He asked him: which way are you heading? Hadhrat Hussain replied: I am heading towards Kufah. The chief said: I make you swear by God that you should go back. You are not going to Kufah but you are going to face the points of spears and the blades of swords. If these people, who have dashed off letters to you, side with you during the battle and furnish you with arms and weapons, it’ll be in the fitness of things for you to go there. But as things stand, the situation is replete with danger and your visit will be most inexpedient. He replied: O God’s creature! I am not unaware of it either but no one can prevail over divine plans.

Departure towards Kufah:

Then he marched towards Kufah. On the way he chanced to meet a person who informed him about the betrayal and cowardice of the Kufis and told him bluntly that he did not have a single supporter and helper. He added that in-stead of helping him, the Kufis might turn against him.



When the armed forces of Kufah intercepted him, he realized that the actual situation clashed with the promises of help and the assurances of support with which their letters were cluttered and clogged. They had taken a complete volte face. He asked one of his companions to bring him the two bags containing their letters. He brought the bags and poured out their contents right in front of them.

At Karbala:

The Kufis disowned both the letters and the messages. He continued the march till he landed in Karbala. When massive armies rallied against Hadhrat Hussain, he was convinced that there was no shelter for him. He raised his hands for prayer: O Allah! arbitrate between us and this nation who had invited us to help us but who have waged war against us.

Hadhrat Hussain fought bravely and spiritedly until he quaffed the cup of martyrdom. The people who fought against him on the battlefield or who put him to martyrdom were all Kufis. There was not a single Syrian who had taken part in the fray.

The Shia historian Yaqubi—who, in the opinion of Well-hausen, was highly fanatic and extremely partisan—mentions that when the Kufis martyed him, they plundered his goods and belongings and escorted the ladies to Kufah. When the ladies entered Kufa, the women of that town came out of their houses screaming and beating there chests. Hadhrat Ali bin Hussain remarked: if they are mourning for us, then who has murdered us? I would like reproduce here the words of the German historian Well-hausen, who has a soft corner for the Shias:

"The populace in Kufah did not want to help the Government, but inspite of their disinclination to help, they did not join the ranks of the enemy. Even those people who had dispatched letters to Hadhrat Hussain, sworn their loyalty and sincerity, kept away during the hour of trial and did not extend the hand of cooperation towards him. The maximum that they did for him was to watch the grue-some spectacle of his martyrdom from a distance and shed crocodile tears over the gory out-come. People who stayed with him till the end could be counted on fingers: for instance, Abu Thamamah Saidi, the treasurer of the public exchequer, Ibn Aosjah etc fought beside them on the battle field. Some of them had joined them on the way, and there were others who had supported them till the last hour out of a feeling of human sanctity, though they had neither any links with them nor did they happen to be among their Shias. The historian have especially under-scored the discrepancy between the followers who did not flutter a feather (in support of the Imam) and the non-followers who went the whole hog to help him and put his followers to shame. More painful is the fact that not only the Quraish but the Ansar as well had drawn themselves away from Hadhrat Hussain. When he left Madinah, not one of them accompanied him. Among the Shias of Kufah, very few people actively supported him. The 63 A.H. revolution was not caused Ali’s progeny and Hadhart Ali bin Hussain had no link with it at all. The people who came out against these insincere and lily-livered rulers were the overt enemies of Shias and had served the Umayyids as their most humble servants. It means the war was not waged out of religious considerations.

Baghdadi observes: The Rafidihis of Kufah are notorious for their meanness and treachery. These two flaws have become almost proverbial. It is generally stated: "Abkhil min Kufi" (that person even beats the Kufis in spite) and "Aghdar min Kufi" (that person is even more treacherous than the Kufis).

Three treacheries of the Kufis:

After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali, they submitted allegiance to his son Hadhrat Hassan, but when he set off to fight against Hadhrat Muawiyyah, they betrayed him at Sabat Madain. Sana J’afi forced him down his horse with a spear-blow at his thigh. This episode was one of the reasons which compelled Hadhrat Hassan to patch up with Hadgrat Muawiy-yah.

The second treachery was that they scribbled letters to Hadhrat Hussain bin Ali and invited him to visit Kufah. Their express purpose was to seek his support against Yazid bin Muwaiyyah. He was deceived by their overt intentions and set out towards them. When he landed in Karbala, the Kufis betrayed him and, instead of supporting him, they supported Ubaidullah bin Ziyyad. The result was that Hadhrat Hussain and his kinsmen died on the sunbaked sand of Karbala in a state of abject misery and utter helplessness. The fourth person they played the hoax on was Yazid bin Ali bin Hussain bin abi Talib. They supported him against Yousaf bin Umar, but snapped out of their allegiance to him, and in the thick of battle, handed over Yazid bin Ali to his enemy who put him to death.

These were the Shias! the Shias of Ali, Hussan and Hussain and this is the treatment they had extended to their Imams and forefathers. I have deliberately discussed it at length because Shiaism underwent a radical change after this accident. The change related to the new complexion they put on the hoodwink the people. Previously, it was a purely political group: but now it donned a religion mask. They had actually supported Hadhrat Ali and his progeny against Hadhrat Muawiyyah and Banu Umayyah. Wellhausen has clearly stated in reference to the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain and the subsequent revenge taken by Mukhtar that Shiaism at that time dressed itself in new robes in Kufah. It had its roots in Iraq and was restricted to political alignments only. At first there was no distinction between the elite and the non-elite and they stood in the same row though the elite acted as their leaders. But when dangers surrounded them on all sides, they turned over a new leaf and softened their attitude as a result of the persuasion of Amwis in Syria. Then their services were utilized against the Shia movements and this was the time when they detached themselves from the Shia of Ali which resulted in a further circumscription of the Shia objectives. Later on, Shiaism graduated towards its tranformation as a religious group though they had a standing political dispute with the leading members of various tribes. After the martyrdom of distinguished people, it transformed itself into a specific movement. The helpersand supporters of Sulaiman bin Sard were against the movement of the distinguished personages of different tribes. Mukhtar was, of course, the first person who parasitically instilled new life into the movement. He included the Mawalis in the movement as well. Their inclusion was relatively easier on account of their inclination towards religious matters. They also virtually ignored national and communal prejudice though the Arabs still practised it. Similarly, these people (the Mawalis) disliked those who harboured any malice against the Arab chieftains.

When the association of the Shias grew deeper with these insurgents, they were stripped of their Arab and national identity. Though the basis of their association was Islam it was not early Islam but and entirely different brand.

Now Shiaism started assimilating alien views and beliefs. Besides, it split up into different groups and sects. Each person who entertained malice against Islam drew his nourishment from Shiaism. Thus Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and Hindus, who were keen to intromit their views into the speculative framework of Islam, relied on the crutches of Shiaism. Besides, people who wanted to stabilize their particular religion and rebel against their incompetent rulers, found solace in the seductive innovations of Shiaism. All of them utilized their spurious love of the house of Ali as a label for the completion of their nefarious interests. The Jews injected the concept of return of resurrection into the body-frame of Shiaism and the Shias had declared the fire of hell unlawful for their community. And if any Shia was thrown into hell, he would stay there only for a few days. They actually parrotted out the views of the Jews who believed that they would stay in the flames of hell only for a few days. Under the influence of Christian beliefs they held that Imam enjoyed with Him. Imam is the converging point of divine and non-divine attributes. Prophethood is interminable. A Prophet is the receptacle of divinity. He develops an inalienable union with the God-head and their separation becomes impossible. Shiaism also encouraged and publicized the concepts cherished by Brahmins, philosophers and pre-Islamic Zorostrians became the raison d,tre of Shiasim. Some of the Persians also put on the mask of Shiaism and revved up their activities against Banu Umayyah. The fact was that they loathed the Arab rule and wanted to strengthen their own rule.

Maqrizi observes that the Persians had an edge over all other nations. They over-estimated themselves at least in their own eyes. This is attested by the fact that they attached to themselves meliorative epithets while they conferred on others pejorative labels. They strongly believed in the master-slave dichotomy, reserving the first half of the polarity for themselves and distributing freely the second half among the people of the world. When the Arabs defeated them, though ironically, the regarded them the least dangerous, it had a devastating impact on Persians and they magnified their humiliation beyond all proportion. Therefore on various occasions, they floated the balloon of their conspiracy against Islam but each time the Muslims, by the grace of God, pricked it and it burst in the mid air scattering hapazardly its synthetic shards. When they had been frequently frustrated in direct and overt confrontations, they found it more effective and convenient to rely on indirect and underhand strategies. Therefore, some of them slipped into Islamic garbs and under the pretext of love of the Ahl-i-Bait and by openly stressing the innocence of Hadhrat Ali, they attached the Shias towards themselves and ultimately derailed them by taking them through different routes.

I have already stated ho the Shias humiliated and disgraced those whom the apparently professed to love. Now I propose to take up the issue of their allignments and differences. The Shias splintered into three sects after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain as has been mentioned by Nau Bakhti. The details of these sects are as follows:

Kaisaniyyah:

After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain a group of his friends and supporters was simply dazed by the whirl of circumstances. They had witnessed two precedents one after the other. The first precedent was established by the conduct of Hadhrat Hussain. Both of them held the stature of Imams for them. Therefore they were at a loss to evaluate their conduct. On the one hand was Hadhrat Hassan who, inspite of the overwhelming number of his companions, had refused to battle with Hadhrat Muawiyyah and offered him the reins of power on a platter; on the other hand was Hadhrat Hussain who, inspite of the heavy odds against him, had refused to knuckle under and preferred to resist the force of tyranny and oppression. Hadhrat Hussain clearly knew that the forces of Yazid out-numbered his men but he did not bend under their numerical pressure and embraced martyrdom along with his companions on the battle field. He obviously preferred the chess board of war to the negotiation table of humiliating peace. If Hadhrat Hassan was justified in his stand, the conduct of Hadhrat Hussain was unjustified either as he felt more crippled and handicapped compared with his brother. And if Hadhrat Hussian’s action was justified it would automatically invalidate the action of Hadhrat Hassan. on account of this fundamental complication, the Imamat of the two brothers because suspect in their eyes. Some of them squirmed out of the commitment to their Imamat and started piping the tunes called out by other people. But the rest of Hadhrat Hussain’s companions clung to their faith in his Imamt as they had done in the past.

After Hadhrat Hussain, these people split into three gorups. One of the groups believed in the Imamat of the thesis that after Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain there wan nobody who could be closer to Amir-ul-Mominin than Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah as Hadhrat Hussain was more entitled to the Imamat after the death of Hadhrat Hassan, Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah is most deserving of the Imamat. Thus he is our Imam.

The second group believes that Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah is Imam Mehdi, and Hadhrat Ali has predicted about him. No one among the Ahl-i-Bait can either oppose him or deny his Imamat nor can he draw his sword out of the sheath without his permission and then handed over the Khilafat to him in the same way. Similarly, Hadhrat Hussain’s war with Yazid also carried his sanction. If Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain had acted without a green signal form him, they would have been derailed and destroyed because any one who opposed Muhammad bin Haniyyah was an ingidel and a disbeliever. It was Muhammad who had appointed Mukhtar bin abi Ubaid as the governor of Iraq and Syria and ordered him to avenge the blood of hussain by killing his murderes, and to dig them out form their hiding places. He also name him "Kaisan" on account of his intelligence and his followers are called Mukhtariyyah or Kaisaniyyah.

I have earlier stated that Kaisaniyyah came into the limelight after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali and later on acquired the label of Mukhtariyyah. A number of Shia off-shoots and sub-group sprang out of Kaisaniyyah: for example, Karabiyyah, Harbiyyah, Razarmiyyah, Bayaniyyah, Rawindiyyah, Abul-Mulammiyyah, Hasmiyyah, Haritiyyah and many other sects.

The common denominator among these sects is the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah and the net-work of beliefs churned out by Abdullah bin Saba. All these sects believe in back-biting, resurrection and transmigration. One of their poyes says:

(The Imams of Quraish are the supporters of right: they are fout and all of them are of equal stature)

(One of them is Hadhrat Ali, and the three are his sons who are grandsons of the Messenger of Allah and all the people know them)

(One of the grandsons is a paragon of virtue and piety and the other disappeared at Karbala)

(and the third grandson will not die until he leads the armies with a flag fluttering in front)

(They have vanished into the lap of luxury (Ridhwal) and will remain invisible for a certain period. They have honey and water at their dispsoal)

Baghadadi in his book "Al-Firq Bain-ul-Firq" has answered these verses. A Kaisani poet says:

(O people! Go to the man who lives the valley of Ridhwa, visit his house and pay homage to him)

(Can any damage be done to this group from our sides who made him the ruler and conferred on him the title of Khalifah and imam)?

(They waged war with all the residents of the earth on his account though he lives at a distance of seventy years of travel)

(He lives in seclusion in the heart of the valley of Ridhwa and the angels chat him up)

(Ibn Khaula has not tasted death nor has the earth hidden his bones)

(On account of his virtues, he is furnished with the best residence and company, and his companions treat him with tremendous regard). Baghdadi has retaliated in the language.

(You have wasted a whole life span waiting for a person whose bones are hidden in the earth)

(There is not a single Imam in the valley of Ridhwa whom the angels chat up)

(He has neither honey nor water at his disposal, nor any other syrup that could substitute for food)

(The son of Khaula tasted death as his father had tasted it)

(If social superiority and religious piety were the guarantee of an eternal life, then the Prophet (peace be upon him) would be blessed with immortality.)

It is noteworthy that Imamat had been transferred to Banu Abbas from Kaisaniyyah. Some of its sects believed that the Imamat had passed on to Muhammad bin Ali bin Abbas from Abu Hashim bin Muhammad bin Hanifiyyah, from him to his son Ibrahim, form Ibrahim to Abul Abbas and form Abdul Abbas to Abu J’afar Mansur who was the founder of the Abbasiyyah dynasty.

Of all the Shia sects, the sect of Mukhtar bin abi Ubaid Thaqafi enjoyed the best reputation and attached the largest number of followers. It gained the widest circulation because it came out with the unequivocal call to avenge the blood of Hadhrat Hussain. Kashi has reported in his book "Rijal" through Muhammad bin Masud, Ibn abi Ali Khiza’, Khalid bin Yazid Umri and Hassan bin Zaid, It is attributed to Umar bin Ali that Mukhtar dispatched twenty thousands dinar to Ali bin Hussain which he accepted and repaired his own house and the house of ‘Aqil bin abi Talib that were in a delpidated condition. Later, he sent him forty thousands dinar which he declined to accept because he had by that time articulated his beliefs.

Mukhtar was the person who persuaded people to acknowledge the Imamat of Muhammad bin Haniyyah. Those who responded to his invitation were called Mukhtariyyah or Kaisaniyyah, by virtue of which the surname of "kaisan" was appended to his name. Some people suggest that the surname Kaisan was conferred on him on him by Maula bin abi Talib. He prompted him to avenge the murder of Hussain and he also identified the murderers to facilitate his vengeance. He was his confidant but also had an edge over him. Whenever he came to know that an enemy of Hussain was hiding in some house, he would rush to the place, raze it to the ground and kill all the living things in it. The dilapidated houses of Kufah were reduced to a shambles by him. As a matter of fact, he acquired the status of proverbial figure among the Kufis. Whenever they found someone in a state of misery and penury, they at once imputed it to the evil act of Abu Umrah. A poet wrote:

(He is the devil. You can’t except anything good form him. H will provoke you to rebellion but he will not dole out even a crumb of food.)

Wellhausen has given maximum space to him in his book. I would like to reproduce below his words to piece together a picture of Mukhtar which the German orientalist has drawn so pains-takingly.

"It is generally stated about Mukhtar that he is a magician (Tabri Vol. 2, P. 730), that he is anti-Christ (Tabri, P. 686). He is generally dubbed as a liar. All these epithets were showered on him not because he was a self-styled spokesman of Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah, but because he claimed himself to be a prophet thought he had done it only surreptitiously. But some of his acts clearly betrayed his intentions and reflected his prophetic pretensions. When he spoke, he gave the impression as if he was sitting in the presence of the Lord and knew the hidden secrets of the universe. His linguistic versatility and eloquence also helped in the projection of his image as an extraordinary person. His main object was to impress the people and he achieved a reasonable measure of success objective, but the majority of people who were impressed by his objective, but the majority of people who were impressed by his rhetoric and tactics generally belonged to the illiterate masses or were know for their stupidity. However, as his reputation increased, the strategies of the Muslims grew more subtle and comprehensive to beat him at his own game. And when he was finally defeated, the whole world turned against him, and after his murder his memories fell prey to the arrows of convention and ritual. In the initial phase he was condemned alright but no attempt was made to disfigure him. But in the later phase a regular campaign of character-assassination was launched against him which created a distorted impression of his personality on the minds of the future generations: The attempt at disfigurement was motivated mainly by spite and jealousy. Dozy in his book "Maqallh fi Tarikh-ul-Islam" has also relied on these traditions. It was he who had ordered the flight of white pigeons. He had also invented the concept of "Bada" about God to justify his whimsical sides form one religion to the other and stripped his followers of any right to criticise his religious jumps and shuffles. Tabri’s account has played a considerable role in his projections along these lines.

If we want an answer to the question whether he was a genuine prophet or an imposter, we’ll have to first established the fact whether he was sincere or in-sincere in his efforts. It seems he used prophethood as an instrument or his socio-political elevation and the same argument is applicable to the modus vivendi adopted by Muhammad. It should also be kept in mind that islam is a political religion and each Muslims prophet is justified in elevating his political status. But even more pernicious and dangerous is the fact that he camouflaged himself behind an imaginary personality and nothing was know about him or perhaps no attempt was made to probe into his reality. Therefore it is certain that there was come flaw in his sincerity, on this count at least. It is another story that the circumstances did not permit him to rely on a specific appellation but packaged himself in abstract terms as the nucleus of truth. Mukhrat had derived his beliefs from Sabaism, an innovatory sect (designed mainly to scoop away the concrete form the foundation of Islam). Sabaism held tremendous appeal especially for the elite of various tribes, and under its influence, the Shias had adopted an obscene and aggressive posture against the Sunnis which brought into the limelight Shia-Sunni differences. Sabaism is also known as Kaisaniyyah. Kaisan was simultaneously the chief of Mawalis and Sabais which obviously leads one to the conclusion that Mawalis and the Shias were one and the same (P. 623, 1.14; P. 651, 1.2).

Banking on this conclusion, some people are inclined to believe that Shiasm has its religious roots in Iran because majority of Kufh Mawalis hailed form Iran. Dozy writes in his book (ff. 20) that the Shias are in fact a Persian sect. This clearly explains the difference between Arabic and Persian genus. The Arabs love freedom and independence; the Persians love slavishness and humility. The election of a Caliph after the Prophet was something unexpected for them which they found extremely gritty to swallow or digest. They believed only in the law of inheritance as it was compatible with their servile outlook. It was, therefore, part of their conviction that as long as Muhammad lived, none on his sons could replace him. Hadhrat Ali also favoured his appointment as Caliph. Therefore it was essential that Khilafat should circulate only among Ali’s also favoured his appointment as Caliph. Therefore it was essential that Khilafat should circulate only among Ali’s progeny as part of an inviolate heritage. That is why they declared all the Caliphs, with the solitary exception of Hadhrat Ali, as usurpers and openly expressed that their obedience was not binding on them. Their belief was strengthened by the fact that they disliked the overlordship of the Arabs and their eyes were rivetted on the wealth and oppulence of their cheifs. They were also used to the rule of those who had sprung out of the backs of their secular lords. Thus they transferred their notion of honour and prestige to Ali and his progeny. Therefore it was their greatest obligation to prescribe absolute submission to any Imam who happened to be an Alvi sprig. A mere discharge of this obligation could render a man immune to all sin and evil, without any qualm of compunction. The Imam, in fact, was all that they cared for. He was God in the garb of man. This blind attachment and indifference to one’s duties and obligations was the foundation of their religion.

Muller has also expressed similar views in the relevant book (Vol. 1, P. 327) with the addition that the Persians were deeply and extensively influenced by Hindu views on account of their centuries old association with one another. As a result of this influence, they believed that the king was the light of the divine soul which is transferred from kings to their successors who are in the direct line of lineage.

It is beyond doubt that Shia views and beliefs have close affinity with the views and beliefs of Iranis but to suggest that the former have branched out of the latter is an exercise in building sandcastles and lacks the ballast of reality.

The other beliefs held by these people are recorded at length in other books bearing on the issue. Here the beliefs are discussed keeping in view the constraints of space and the restraints of relevance. Since these issues have a built-in propensity to slide out of hand, every effort relatively larger space to this Shia group and its ring leader because it is a legacy of Sabaism. The Shias who appeared on the scene later derived their views and beliefs from this nucleus sect. Consequently, true Shiaism started melting away and the early Shias were on the wane. They soon went out of circulation because they could not cosmeticize their wares. The progeny of Ali and Banu Hashim topped the list of the genuine Shias who were receding fast into the limbo of oblivious. The Sabai views were no invested with sufficient strength to elbow them out, and had overtly aggressive designs towards all the genuine Shias. But the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain dampened their devilish enthusiasm by creating a soft corner in the hearts of people for Hadhrat Ali and his children. Those who demanded revenge for the blood of Hussain felt a sense of deep frustration. Their blood simply boiled when they reflected on the murder of Hussain. They wanted to dismantle the entire administrative structure that carried the stigma of Hussain’s blood. Some of them denigrated everything that was even remotely connected with the Government; they openly condemned and fluted their beliefs and edicts. When these people realized that the rulers respected Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the wives of the Prophet, they disaffiliated themselves from them and started lambasting the pious personalities. They did not condemn them out of principle or because they had any difference of opinion with them. It was out of sheer stubbornness and a sense of deep-rooted indignation that they declaimed any statement or slogan that rose from the pulpit because, in their purblindness, they equated the voice of the priest with the voice of the administrators. It is indeed a reflection of their radicalism that had seeped into their hearts and minds as a consequence of the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain. Therefore Allama Zahadi and Ibn Taimiy have stated that all the early Muslims shared on unqualified convergence of opinion on the superiority of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar. Even the Shias of Ale held the same conviction. Ibn Batah attributes it to his Shaikh who is more popularly known as Abul Abbas bin Masruq (the tradition is filtered through Muhammad bin Hamid, Jaria, Suffiyan and Abduallh bin Ziyyad bin Haider that Abu Ishaq Sabi’i came to Kufah. Shimr bin Atiyyah persuaded us to call on him. When we went over to see him, he said to us: when I left Kufa, there was not a single person who doubted the superiority of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar. Now when I arrived here, I have found people talking against them. By God! I fail to guess what are they talking about!

Zamura quotes Said bin Hassan who is reported to have heard from Layth bin Salim: I have lived in the period of early Shias and I know from my experience that they did not prefer anyone to Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar in status.

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (through Suffiyan bin ‘Uyyinah and Khalid bin Salmah) attributes it to Masruq who reportedly laid special stress on the love and status of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar and raised it to the level of a tradition. It should be noted that Hadhrat Masruq is considered one of the distinguished Kufi successors of the companions of the Propher (peace be upon him). Hadhrat Taus has also endorsed him. Hadhrat Masud, too, expresses similar views. It was obviously binding on the early Shias to show respect to these pious personages because Ali’s words have come down to us with unbroken continuity that Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Umar are the most superior persons in the Muslim Ummah after the Prophet (peace be upon him). This tradition is frequently and repeatedly attributes to him, and as a stamp of its certification, it exits in eighty authentic versions.

Imam Bokhari has supported it in his "Sahih" with special reference to his Hadith "Ba-Tariq Hamadaniyyin" (the people who were Hadhrat Ali’s closest associates). Rather, he himself often expresses:

(If I am serving as a porter at any one of the gates of Paradise, I would tell the Hamadains to enter Paradise sagely and fearlessly). Imam Bokhari attributes a tradition to Suffiyan Thauri who is a Hamadiani and he has ascribed it to Muhammad bin Haniyyah. He said: I asked my father who was the vest person after the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

Hadhrat Ali: don’t you know my son!

Muhammad: No, I don’t.

Hadhrat Ali: Abu Bakr is the best man.

Muhammad: And who after him?

Hadhrat Ali: after him, Hadhrat Umar.

Since it was a person to-person dialogue between Hadhrat Ali and his son, it would not be fair to assume that Hadhrat Ali was dissimulating at that time and trying to hide his true feelings in the interest of expediency. And then the reporter also happens to be his own son who proclaimed it form the pulpit to obviate the possibility of any skeptical reaction to the truth of its contents. Hadhrat Ali himself openly stated that if any person was brought before him who declared him superior to Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar he would flog him the way he flogged a back—biter and a transgressor.

Muhibbuddin Khatib has noted in the margin of "Al-Muntaqa" that it provides a chronological line of demarcation to isolate early Shiaism from later Shiaism. Abu Ishaq Sab’i was a distinguished scholar of Kufah. He was born during the Caliphate of Hadhrat Uthman and three years before his martyrdom. He died in 127 A.H. He was only a child during Hadhrat Ali’s tenure as Caliph. He himself says that his father lifted him and he saw Hadhrat Ali delivering the sermon. At that time both his head and beard were grey. If we ever find out the exact date he left Kufah, we could come closer to what actually happened in that period in which the Shias of Kufag were Alvis and, like their Imam, believed unconditionally in the superiority of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar. We would also come to know when did the Shias actually oppose Hadhrat Ali on this issue: It is very strange that both the Khwarjis and the Abbasis clung to the old belief and honoured their commitment with Hadhrat Ali but the Shais in the very first century disobeyed their own Imam by raising their promises in the last days of Abu Ishaq Sabi’i.

The change brought a radical shift in Shia beliefs. At first they had challenged only the peripheral issues. But now they questioned the very basis of their beliefs on account of their hatred of the rulers and the administrators. In their fury they identified the beliefs with those of the administrators. They forgot that the convictions were divinely oriented while the rulers had their human flaws and short-comings and their weaknesses did not nullify the validity of the convictions. But men do get disoriented and slide off the rails in a state of anger. And the Shias were no exception the worst aspect of their detracking was that they raised a mere prejudice into a philosophy which could neither by substantiated by convention nor bolstered by logic. They became so splenetic that they started denigrating the Quran, which is the main bulwark of the faithful against the rampancy of evil, and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) which is an explanation and clarification of the Quranic injunctions.

After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain, the Shias fell a frequent prey to al sorts of obscenities and vulgarities which often assault a faithless community or a group of people who consciously and wilfully opt for the evil way. The early Shias felt chessed off by their evil practices and tried to raise barricades against the proliferation of their devilish views but their efforts proved futile. However, when they realized that the Shias had reached a point of no return and were absolutely disinclined to give up their sinful way of life, they bade farewel to Shiaism. Their decision to give a parting kick to Shiaism was not an emotional decision. It was a gall-out of their conviction that the Shias could not wriggle out of the quagmire of corruption into which they had suck on account of greed and lechery. When Mukhtar had settled himself comfortably at the steering – wheel of the Honda Accord of Shiaism, Ibrahim refused to join him as an accomplice in dismantling the fundamentals of Islam. This refusal has been attested to by Wellhausen, the distinguished German orientalist. Ibrahim bin Ashtar was the head of the Nakha off-shoot of the Mizhif tirbe. He was a shred and highly opinionative person. Like his father, he was a sincere admirer of Hadhrat Ali. He had good relations with Muhammad bin Haniyyah, though he did not like the brand of Shiaism that was in vogue in those days. He neither associated himself with Sulaiman Sard nor did he display any interests in Mukhtar’s improvisations. The other people also failed to rope him in. At last he received a letter from Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah in which he had been asked unequivocally to acknowledge the personality of Mukhtar bin Ubaid. But what really terrified him was the fact that Ibn Hanifiyyah had used the by-name "Mehdi" in his letter, though, as far as he knew, he had never attached any extra epithet or label to his orighinal name. This unexpected change led him belief that the letter had been forged. But the messengers who had brought the letter confirmed its genuineness. Later Mukhtar himself attested to its authenticity. However, two persons attracted his attention, presumably for their own safety. They were ‘Amir bin Sharahil Shobi—reporter, Jurist and Muhaddith and his father Sharahil. He drew Amir aside and asked him about the reliability of the witnesses who had attested to the authenticity of the letter. Amir told him that they were among the distinguished people of Egypt and Arabia, and therefore they were generally considered trustworthy and dependable. In view of the reputation they enjoyed, they could not have possibly doctored the evidence. (Tabri 612/2). Ibn Ashtar asked them to write down their names. He consequently wrote a brief review bearing on these events. When he was convinced about the unadulterated contents of the letter, he extended it the honour it deserved and reserved himself for the service of Mukhtar bin abi Ubaid.

But when Mukhtar took a somerasult and dabbled unashamedly in the propagation of his latent Sabai views, which lambasted the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and preached open enmity against the Prophetic views and way of life, people twirled their whiskers against him. They condemned him for his heretic and blasphemous ideas. They accused him of usurpation of power. They said that he had installed himself into the highest executive seat without the consent and command of Ibn Hanigiyyah and he and his Sabaism had introduced an innovation into the body-politic of Islam which was mainly designed to debunk and disown their illustrious and pious forefathers.

These elderly people took control of the important centres of Kufah. They dumped Mukhtar into the palace and disconnected him with the world outside. He tried to bamboozle them with a cleverly devised plan. He suggested that two independent delegations should be dispatched to Ibn Haniyyah for investigating the state affairs. One would represent him and the other delegation would represent them. The delegates would find out whether Ibn Haniyyah had extended his support to him or not. But his plan did not materialize and he failed to pull a rabbit out of his magic bag.

Wellhausen adds: "Mukhtar was at the zenith of power, but the pits of destruction also lay before him. The old Arab Shias did not trust him. That is why they had disposed him and quarantined him from power".

The details are sufficient to establish a profile of the changes that appeared in the conduct of the early Shias and their later manifestation. After the change, Shiaism was trimmed down to a set of obscene and vulgar exercises as it was drained of its galvanizing spirit. They believed that the white pigeons were angels. They also held strange beliefs about prophethood and the unknown. A new wave of dissension hit the Shias after the murder of Mukhtar. One of the sects came out with the proposal that Ali bin Hussain was their Imam. He had two patronyms: one was Abu Muhammad and the other was Abu Badr, which was relatively more popular. This sect clung to their faith in his Imamat till his death in 94 A.H. in the month of Muharram. He was fifty years old when he died. He was born in 39 A.H. His mother was known as Salafah but was called Jahan Shah before she acquired the status of a slave-maid. She was the daughter of Yazdjard bin Shahr yar bin Kisra Abr Wiz bin Hurmuz. Yazdjard was the last king of Iran.

Another sect believed that after Hadhrat Hussain the chain of Imamat borke down. There were only three Imams whom they mentioned by their names. They were appointed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and acted as his executors. They followed him one after the other and their ovedience was binding on every one. But they did not specify any one as their successor. Still another sect believed that after Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain. They shared the Imamat among themselves as it was specified for them only. Any one of them who invites the people to follow him their Imam and it is binding on them to obey him. He acts on behalf of Hadhrat Ali. Therefore it is a divine obligation of the people to acknowledge him as their leader. Any one who opposes him is an infidel. And any one who claims himself to be an Imam and them disappears within the walls of his house is also an infidel, and any one who obeys him and acknowledges his Imamt is an infidel too.

Some other Shia sects:

Besides, there are number of other Shia sects. Some of them are of the opinion that the portfolio of Imamt is held by the children of Hadhrat Hassan. Other sects entertain other views. Some of them believe that the chain of prophethood continues after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and they do not hesitate either to ascribe partners to God, as Ibn Hazm has stated in his book "Fasl".

The Shias who believe in the continuation of prophethood after the Prophet (peace be upon him) are further subdivided into many sects. One of these sects is known as Gharabiyyah. It is their conviction that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had the same resemblance with Hadhrat Ali as a crow (gharab) has with another crow. God had actually sent down Bavriel with the revelation to Hadhrat Ali but by mistake he brought it to the Prophet (peace be upon him). One of these groups believes that Hadhrat Ali is a prophet. An other group believes that Hadhrat Ali, Hassan, Hussain, Ali bin Hussain, Muhammad bin Ali, Jafar bin Munammad, Musa bin Jafar, Ail bin Musa, Muhammad bin Ali, Hassan bin Muhammad and Imam Muntazir bin Hassan were all prophets.

Qaramatah:

One of the Shia sects is convinced only of the prophethood of Muhammad bin Ismail bin Jafar: it is called Qaramtah. Another sect believes in the prophethood of Hadhrat Ali and his three sons Hassan, Hussain and Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah. This sect is an off-shoot of Kaisaniyyah. Mukhtar was also on the verge of staking out his claim to prophethood. He decked out his kiosk with many inconceivable wares and scared the people to their roots by palming off bogus revelations. Quite a few of the damned Shia groups, who believed in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Hanfiyyah, were his ardent followers.

One of the sects expressed its belief in the prophethood of Mughirah bin Said. Another sect believe in the prophethood of Mansur Ajli and they often repeated the Quranic verse:

(If they see a piece falling from the sky). It was also known as ‘Kasf’.

There are other Shia sects who believe that divinity is a limited company or a corporate organization with many partners of equal status. On the top of the list are the followers of Abdullah bin Saba Humairi (may God curse him) who had the audacity and the impudence to express in front of Hadhrat Ali: "you are Him". He asked: Who? The rogues replied: We mean to say that you are Allah. He was terribly indignant when he heard their outrageous words and he hurled them alive into the raging fire. When they were being thrown into the fire, thy were saying: we are convinced now that you are Allah because it is only Allah Who punishes by fire. Hadhrat Ali recited a verse bearing on the episode:

(When I realized that it was an absolutely wicked thing, I had the fire lighted and called for Qanbar. Qambar was the name of his slave. He gripped them one by one and dumped them into the fire. Hadhrat Ali’s companions behaved towards him in the same way as the companions of Jesus had behaved towards him. This sect had a wide circulation. A large number of Shias are attached to it, and it has survived down to the present days of sophisticated technology and intellectual enlightenment, and it openly flaunts its beliefs. Ishaq bin Muhammad Nakhfi Ahmar Kufi belonged to this sect. He was one of its prominent members. He has also written a book called "Al-Sirat" on the beliefs of the sect. Bhinki and Fiyyaz have refuted his claims in their books. These rascals used to say that Hadhrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the messenger of Hadhrat Ali. One of the Shia sects is called Muhammdiyyah who believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is Allah. an other sect believes that Hadhrat Adam was God, and all the prophets down to Hadhrat Muhammad (peace be upon him), who followed him, were all Gods. Similarity Hadhrat Ali was also a God. Hadhrat Hassan, Hadhrat Hussain, Muhammad bin Ali, Jafar bin Muhammad were Gods too. Then they kept off these blasphemies and apostasies for a while but the Shia sect Khtabiyyah, during the period of Isa bin Musa bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas believed that Jafar is God. Thus numerous parties of these Shias came out of their houses in the early part of the day, wearing Ihram and gathered in Azrawaridiyyah and proclaimed in loud accents

(welcome Jafar! Welcome Jafar).

Ibn Ayyash etc say that they were watching the spectacle when Isa bin Musa went up to him and picked up a fight with him. He also retaliated violently and made a massive massacre of them. Then another sect declared that Muhammad bin Ismail bin Jafar bin Muhammad was God. Qaramtah held on to this belief. Some of the adherents of this views also believed in the divinity of Abu Said Hassan bin Behram Jabai and after him in the divinity of his sons. Some of them believed that Abul Qasim Najar was God. He was popularly known as Mansur and he resided in Yemen and Balad Hamadan. A number of other people ascribed divinity to the highest executive ofice of the State. On eof the sects professed the divinity of Abu Khatab Muhammad bin abi Zainab Maual bani Asad. This group had a numerical edge over many other sects and its adherents ran into thousands. They believed in his divinity as well as the divinity of Jafar bin Muhammad but the former was superior God. They also claimed that all the sons of Hadhrat Hassan are the sons and darlings of God and are still alive in the skies. Another sect transformed Momar, the wheat-seller into a God-head. Momar was one of the companions of Abul Khatab.

One of the sects believed in the divinity of Hassan bin Mansur Hallaj, the cotton-ginner. He was hanged during the period of Muqtadir through the efforts of Wazir bin Hamid bin Abbas. Another sect attributes divine essence to Muhammad bin Ali bin Shalmaghani Katib. He was murdered in Baghdad during the tenure of Razi. They believed in women-swapping. Another sect conferred divinity on Shabash who was buried alive in Basrah. Still another sect vests Abu Muslim Siraj with divine attributes. A third sect attributes divine qualities to squint-eyed, short-statured Miqna. He tried to avenge the murder of Abu Muslim. His name was Hashim and he was executed during the tenure of Mansur. A public proclamation was made about his murder and Mansur himself murdered himand his companions.

The Ranudiyyah sect affirmed the divinity of Abu Jafa Mansur. An other sect worshipped Abdullah bin Kharb Kundi Kufi as God. The followers of this sect believed in the transmigration of souls. Nineteen prayers were obligatory for them. Each prayer was divided into fifteen units (Rakat). When one of the ‘Sifriyyah Mutakalimin’ held a discussion with him and explained to him the fundamentals of Islamic faith, he re-embraced Islam and bade farewell to his former beliefs and convictions. He conveyed the fact of his conversion to is companions as well and expressed his unqualified penitence in their presence. All of his companions turned against him. They not only dissociated themselves from him but also launched a vicious campaign against him. Then they elected Abdullah bin Mu’awiyyah bin Abdullah bin Jafar bin abi Talib as their Imam. Abdullah bin Kharb remained a loyal adherent to Islam and to the Safri faith as long as he lived. His party has survived the vagaries of change and is known by the label of Hizbiyyah. Nasriyyah is one of the Sabai sects which believes in the divinity of Hadhrat Ali. The adherents of this sect are sttled in Syria and Jordan and are especially concentrated in the city of Tabriyyah. They believe that people who curse and malign Fatima, daughter of the Messenger of Allah and Hassan and Hussain are devils in human guise. They believe that Abdu Rahman bin Maljim Kuradi, the murderer of Hadhrat Ali—though Hadhrat Ali himslef had cursed him—will be the most superior person in the next world because he had severed the divine soul from the constricting blutches of the flesh. This belief is sheer lunacy and unpardonable perversity. All people who try to flout divine injuctions and indulge in such irrational frenzies should fear the wrath of God because the punishment he inflicts on disobedient and arrogant humans can neither be contained not cured even by their most ingenious remedies. Even the cleverest man is helpless against a divine calamity.

All of these sects which specialize in holding and relishing anti-Islamic beliefs and convictions which it categorically denies and negates. As a matter of fact, their beliefs are a set of negations. They are framed in express violation of the positive injunctions of Islam. Some of the Sufis hold the beliefs that the injunctions of Sharia no longer apply to a person who develops an intimate association with God. Others add that he is coupled with God and is inalienably linked with him. I have heard that there is a person in Naishapur known by the patronym of Au Said and Abul Khair. Some-time he wears woollen clothes and sometimes he dresses himself in silk togs which men are forbidden to wear. Sometimes he offers one thousand rakat in one day and sometimes he even refuses to offer the obligatory prayer. His conduct is a clear—cut violation of Islamic prescriptions and regulations. Islam is not a capricious religion nor does it permit any whimsical indulgence. None of its adherents can play a blind man’s buff with its fundamentals and interpret its basic principles to suit the fluctuations of his erratic temper. A true Muslim does not play ducks and drakes with his faith. He is simply over-awed by its splendour and sublimity and he can not even imagine trivializing it or interpreting it in the hazy glow of his swinging moods. For him it is a source of immediate consolation as well as eventual salvation. Therefore anyone who values his moods more than the rules of the faith is not its true adherent. As a matter of fact, by catering to his misguided moods, he works against its essential spirit which calls for unquallfied obedience and unmodified loyalty.

Ashari, Baghdadi, Malti, and Asfraini etc have also mentioned a number of Shia sects in their books. Most of these sects germinated during the period of Hadhrat Ali bin Hussain who is generally known by the name of Zain-ul-Abidin.

Shias after Ali bin Hussain:

Ali bin Hussain remained loyal to Banu Ummayyah rulers and lost the sympathies of all those in Makka and Madinah who had any plans to oppose these rulers.

Zaidiyyah:

Hadhrat Ali bin Hussain left a large progeny behind him. One of them was Muhammad known by the patronym of Abu Jafar Baqir. One of his sons was called Zaid and another carried the name Umar. There was a difference of opinion among the Shias about Muhammad bin Ali and Zaid bin Ali. Some of them expressed allegiance to Muhammad while others declared adherence to Zaid. One of the Shia historians observes: Zaidiyyah believe in the Imamat of Hadhrat Ali, his son Hassan and his brother Hussain. After him they believe in the Imamat of his son, Zain-ul-Abidin and his son Zaid bin Ali and their sect is known by his name. He invited the people in Kufah to express allegiance to him as their Imam. He was murdered and guillotined to Kinasah. After Zaid’s martyrdom, his followers elected his son Yahya as their Imam who was murdered at Jozfan on his way to Khorasan. He had expressed the desire that after his death Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hassan Sabt should be appointed their Caliph but he was put to death in Hijaz. He had willed the appointment of his brother Ibrahim as Caliph after him. He declared his Imamat in Basra with the support of Isa bin Zaid but the armed forces of Mansur challenged them and ultimately executed both of them to death. The Zaidiyyah also believed that Yahya’s brother Isa was entitled to Imamat after him and therefore they transferred the Imamat to his children. Some others believed that Idris was entitled to Imamat after the death of his brother Muhammad bin Abdullah. But he escaped towards the west where he eventually died. After him his son Idris took up the gauntlet and laid the foundation of the city of Fas. Some of his sons became the rulers of the west. One of his sons had the distinction of ascending the royal throne of Tabristan as king. His brother Muhammad also shared the regal distinction. Then Nasir Al-Hurush in Dilam succeeded them and a large number of people expressed their allegiance to him. Nau Bakhti writes:

"Zaidiyyah was split into two groups; a strong group and a weak group. The followers of the weak group were known as Ajiliyyah. Those were the companions of Harun Said Ajli. One of these Sects is called Behtriyyah. This sect was headed by Kathir Nava’, Hassan bin Salih bin Hi, Salim bin abi Hifsah, Hukm bin Utaibah, Salmah bin Kusail and Abdul Miqdam Thabit Hadad. They invited the people to acknowledge the over lordship of Hadhrat Ali and then muddled it with that of Abu Bakr and Umar. The people generally considered it superior to all other sects because its adherents believe in the superiority to all other sects because its adherents believe in the superiority of Hadhrat Ali and they also profess the leadership of Hadhrat Abu Bakr. They negate Hadhrat Uthman, Talhe and Zubair. They think that they should support each one of Ali’s children and they regard it as an inalienable part of their conviction. They cling to the belief that Imamt circulates only among the children of Hadhrat Ali even if any one of them surrenders or forgoes his right to rule, it goes not mean the termination of his rule. All children of Ali have equal status in their eyes irrespective of the womb that has engendered them.

The stronger sect of Zaidiyyah is steered by Abul Jarud, Abu Khalid Wasti, Fudhail Rasan and Mansur bin abi Al-Aswad. The Zaidiyyah sent which is known by the designation Hussainiyyah believes that any member of the progeny of Muhammad (peace be upon him) who invites people to obey God, deserves to be obeyed by the people. But Hadhrat Ali was the Imam par excellence. Hadhrat Hussain was the Imam when he defied the powers of oppression and when he had dissociated himself from Muawiyyah till the incidence of his martyrdom. Zaid bin Hassan, who had been murdered in Kufah, was also the Imam. His mother was Um Wald. Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan was also the Imam. His mother was Hind bint abi Ubaidah bin Abdullah bin Zima bin Aswad bin Mutlib bin Asad bin Uzabin Qasi. In fact, any one of the progeny of Muhammad (peace be upon him) who invites people to obey God is an Imam.

Shahrastani has commented on different Shia sects and the difference of opinion and belief that characterize them. He remarks that Zaidiyyah are the followers of Hadhrat Zaid bin Ali bin Hussain bin Ali. These people confine Imamt only to the children of Fatima and do not extend its range to other people. They believe that any Fatimi who is learned, pious, brave and magnanimous and desires Imamat is an Imam and deserves to be obeyed whether he belongs to Hassan's progeny or to Hussain’s. One of its sects believes in the leadership of Imam Muhammad and Imam Ibrahim. Both of the were the sons of Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hussain. They rebelled during the tenure of Mansur but were executed. Any one of them who possessed these attributes could claim. Imamat as his right. Zaid bin Ali availed himself of every opportunity to roll in knowledge to strengthen his claim. He received massive shots of knowledge and scholarship form Wasil bin Ata who was the leader of Motazilah and who held the belief that his grandfather, Hadhrat Ali, was swayed more by sentiment than logic in the battles that were waged between the people of Jamal and those of Syria. One of the groups was obviously in the wrong though the extent of its error can not be determined with unerring accuracy. Thus Zaid also learned Itizal from Wasil and all of his companions turned into Motizills. It was also part of their faith that the Imamat of the less superior was also legally binding on the people inspite of the Imamat of the more superior. Through Hadhrat Ali was themost venerated among the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), he had entrusted the Khilafat to Hadhrat Abu Bakr as a measure of expediency and though his compromise he quashed a budding rebellion and satisfied the growing anxiety of the people. He elected Hadhrat Abu Bakr as the Caliph because the dust of the wars fought during the Prophetic era had not yet settled and the sword of Hadhrat Ali had not yet dried up. It was still coated with the blood of Quraish infidels. The hearts of people, therefore, were ovens of revenge and furnaces of vegeance. Thus, if Hadhrat Ali was elected the Caliph, the people would not have inclined towards him from the depths of their hearts and would not have extended him their unqualified allegiance. It was therefore the dictate of expediency and wisdom that the burden of trust should be handed over to a person who was well known for his clemency, affection, faith and deep association with the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore when the Prophet (peace be upon him), during his fatal illness, wanted to entrust the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to the matter to Hadhrat Umar, the people had protested: you are handing the power to rule over us to a person who is notorious for his short temper. It means that the people did not like Hadhrat Umar to become Amir-ul-Momini on account of the violence of his temperament and the severe and unbending treatment of his enemies. But there was a consensus of opinion among them on the choice of Hadhrat Abu Bakr as their leader.

Similarly, when both the Imams are present, the less superior and the more superior, people are supposed to obey the orders of the latter. When the Shias of Kufah came to know that he did not express his dissociation with the Shaikhain, they beat him black and blue till he died. On this count, the label of Rafidha was conferred on him. A debate was also held between him and his brother Muhammad Baqir because he had accepted the discipleship of Wasil bin Ata’ who put the entire blame on Hadhrat Ali for waging a war against oppressors and persecutors. He challenged the concept of fate against the conviction of the Ahl-i-Bait and declared rebellion and speculation obligatory for consolidating the position of an Imam. He even went to the extent of saying that on the basis of his faith his father did not deserve to be an Imam because he had neither rebelled against the existing conditions nor had he come out with an explicit manifesto or programme stamping the validity of his Imamat.

When Zaid bin Ali was murdered, Yahya bin Zaid came out with his claim to Imamat and left for Kharasan. It should be kept in mind that Zaid bin Ali had been executed at Kinasah, a place in Kufah and Hisham bin Abdul Malik was the one who had put him to death, while the Amir of Jazijan had ordered the execution of Yahya bin Zaid in his own town, located in Kharasan. Imam Muhammad was murdered by Isa bin Maham in Madinah and Imam Ibrahim was murdered in Basrah. Both of them had been executed on the orders of Mansur. The Zaidiyyah sect kept on drifting in a whirpool of instability as it had lost stabilizing edge through the murder of its distinguished leaders. Then Nasir Atrush appeared in Khorasan. He was hounded all over the country by the murderers but he went underground. Then he left for Dilam and Jabal where he invite people to embrace the faith preached and practised by Zaid bin Ali. People rallied round him and the Zaidiyyah brand of Islamic religion flourished almost unhampered in this area. Their Imams appeared successively and provided religious guidance to the people. They opposed their cousins in the formulation and interpretation of day-to-day matters relating to the Islamic faith. Later on , a large number of its followers backed out of their commitment to the Imamat of the less superior people and, like the Imamiyyah, they slipped into a lambasting criticism of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). On the basis of their attitude towards the Prophet and his companions, they are divided into three types.

The sects of Salihiyyah and Behtriyyah shared the same set of religions convictions.

Jarudiyyah Sect:

This sect comprised the friends and companions of Abul Jarud. The adherents of this sect believe that the specification issued by the Prophet (peace be upon him) about Hadhrat Ali was a qualified specification. It did not spell out the name clearly and left the designation deliberately ambiguous. Therefore, Hadhrat Ali was entitled to Imamat after him but the people displayed deplorable impercipienc in grasping the significance of this obvious lack of specification and failed to estimate the proper worth of Hadhrat Ali. Exercising their rights, the elevated Hadhrat Abu Bakr to the office of the Khalifah. Thus they turned infidels by virtue of their blindness and recalcitrance. Abul Jarud’s belief is a clear violation of the beliefs held by his Imam Zaid bin Ali who did not believe in the specification.

There is a difference of opinion among the adherents of the Jarudiyyah sect about the continuity or discontinuity of Imamat. Some of them believe in the continuity of Imamat form Hadhrat Ali down to Hadhrat Hassan, Hadhrat Hussain, Ali bin Hussain Zain-ul-Abidin, and to Zaid bin Ali. They hold the view that the Imamat further continued down to Imam Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Hassan bin Hussain. Those who believe in the Imamat of Muhammad bin Abdullah are also divided in their opinion. Some of them propose that he was not executed and is still alive. He will rebel against the existent system of exploitative values and fill the earth with justice and equity. There are others who openly subscribe to the fact of his death and they extend the Imamat down to Muhammad bin Qasim bin Ali bin Hussain bin Ali. He was imprisoned during the tenure of Motasim who incarcerated him within the precincts of his house where he eventually died.

Some of them are inclined towards the Imamat of Yahya bin Umar of Kufah. He protested against the status quo and invited the people in his campaign of purgation and restoration of the true Islamic order of values. A large number of people swarmed round him in response to his call for the purification of the stinking elements that had infected the entire social structure. But Yahya was beheaded during the period of Mustain and his chopped head was offered to Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Zahir on a platter. An Alvi poet has versified about it.

(I have murdered the most distinguished person among those who are accustomed to riding. Now I have come to you and I insist on a mild conversation).

(It is extremely annoying form me that I am meeting you under circumstances when there is no sword-blade